- Comms
- Law
- Medic
- News
- Opinion
- Threat Watch
- Training
- Warrior Tools
- Accessories
- Ammo
- Body Armor
- Books
- Clothing
- Commo
- Gear
- Handguns
- Holsters
- Knives
- Long Guns
- ACC
- Accuracy International
- Barrett
- Benelli
- Beretta
- Blaser
- Bushmaster
- Custom
- CZ
- Desert Tactical Arms
- DPMS
- FN
- Forums
- HK
- IWI
- Kel-Tec Long Guns
- LaRue
- LWRC
- McMillan
- Mosin Nagant
- Mossberg
- Para
- Remington
- Rock River Arms
- Ruger Long Guns
- Sabre Defense
- Sako
- SIG Sauer
- SKS
- Smith & Wesson Long Guns
- Springfield
- Styer
- Weatherby
- Wilson Combat
- Winchester
- Magazines
- Maintenance
- Navigation
- Optics
- Sights
- Tech
- Warriors
Posts Tagged immigration
South Carolina Town: ordinance would ban illegals from living or working here.
Posted by Jack Sinclair in Law, News on 29/Jul/2010 17:39
“SC town councilor takes on illegals – Far from the front lines in the battle over immigration, a South Carolina town is weighing an ordinance that would effectively ban illegals from living or working there.
Walter Bailey: “I thought it was outrageous when, by default, the State of Arizona has to go in there and do the job the Federal Government ought to be doing, instead of showing appreciation for that, and supporting Arizona, the Federal Government sues them.”
Video here:
Sheriff of Cochise County: “Lame Argument” of the Federal Government is “Ludicrous”
Posted by Jack Sinclair in News on 29/Jul/2010 17:24
Sheriff Larry Dever
“Larry Dever is serving his fourth term as sheriff of Cochise County, which, as a border county, is part of the entry route taken regularly by illegal aliens. He believes this case will be appealed all the way to the Supreme Court.
“Our best chance at a favorable decision is…to solve this once and for all. States have a right to protect themselves,” Dever contends. He adds that “the lame argument in federal government that this law somehow interferes with their ability to enforce immigration law is just ludicrous” because “they’re not getting it done to begin with.”
He further points out that the federal government has “been talking about partnerships and empowerment since September 11 with state and local law enforcement authorities to get the job done. Arizona steps up [and] says, ‘We’re ready to take on our part,’ and they sue us.”
The sheriff assures that while the decision must be appealed, he and other enforcement officers will continue to use the laws and resources available to protect the people they serve.”
Verdict’s In: Arizona Judge Lacks Good Reason
Posted by Jack Sinclair in Opinion on 29/Jul/2010 11:14
By John Lott
Protesters celebrate in Phoenix on Wednesday, hours after portions of Arizona's new immigration law were blocked by a federal judge. (Ross D. Franklin/Associated Press)
“Arizona’s immigration law supposedly “would impose a ‘distinct, unusual and extraordinary’ burden on legal resident aliens that only the federal government has the authority to impose.†So asserted Federal District Judge Susan Bolton in her injunction of the new Arizona immigration law on Wednesday.
“Given the large number of people who are technically ‘arrested’ but never booked into jail or perhaps even transported to a law enforcement facility, detention time for this category of arrestee will certainly be extended during an immigration status verification,†Ms. Bolton wrote in her decision.
But this reasoning makes little sense. Anyone — no matter what their accent or looks — who is “technically ‘arrested’” by police is required to show some type of ID. The minor exception is when the arrestee happens to be known to the police already. If unable to provide a basic ID, the police officer has no choice but to detain the individual until identification can be made.
This is very basic. Police can’t issue a ticket, even for a minor speeding offense, without being able to properly identify the person.
Despite the picture painted by Bolton, an immigration check for someone “technically ‘arrested’” imposes no more of a burden than the individual already faces. There are no more documents that are required or additional procedures under Arizona’s immigration law. Any regular ID will do: a driver’s license, a non-operating identification license, valid tribal enrollment card or other form of tribal identification, or “any valid United States federal, state, or local government issued identification.”
Arizona Governor Jan Brewer’s press release of July 28, 2010, about federal district Judge Susan Bolton’s order staying parts of SB 1070, Arizona’s illegal immigration law:
“I am disappointed by Judge Susan Bolton’s ruling enjoining several provisions of “The Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act†— SB 1070; though I am heartened by some
findings – including the ban on sanctuary cities.“This fight is far from over. In fact, it is just the beginning, and at the end of what is certain to be a long legal struggle, Arizona will prevail in its right to protect our citizens. I am deeply grateful for the overwhelming support we have received from across our nation in our efforts to defend against the failures of the federal government.
“I have consulted with my legal counsel about our next steps. We will take a close look at every single element Judge Bolton removed from the law, and we will soon file an expedited appeal at the United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit.
“For anyone willing to see it — the crisis is as clear as is the federal government’s failure to address it.
“The judge herself noted that the stash houses where smugglers hide immigrants from Mexico before bringing them into the country’s interior have become a fixture on the news in Arizona and that, ‘You can barely go a day without a location being found in Phoenix where there are numerous people being harbored.’â€
“When I signed the bill on April 23rd, I said, SB 1070 – represents another tool for our state to use as we work to address a crisis we did not create and the federal government has actively refused to fix. The law protects all of us, every Arizona citizen and everyone here in our state lawfully. And, it does so while ensuring that the constitutional rights of ALL in Arizona are undiminished – holding fast to the diversity that has made Arizona so great.
“I will battle all the way to the Supreme Court, if necessary, for the right to protect the citizens of Arizona. Meanwhile, I also know we still have work to do in confronting the fear-mongers, those dealing in hate and lies and economic boycotts that seek to do Arizona harm.
“We have already made some progress in waking up Washington. But the question still remains: will Washington do its job, and put an end to the daily operations of smugglers in our nation, or will the delays and sidesteps continue? I believe that the defenders of the rule of law will ultimately succeed with us in our demand for action.â€
“Upholding the Law is not mistreatment.”
Posted by Jack Sinclair in Law, News on 24/Jul/2010 18:55
Within nearly every group in the US there is a range of responses to the issue of illegal immigration. Even groups that place a high value on mercy and compassion have differing views. Here’s the opinion of one evangelical:
“President Obama has said that nations “are not defined by our borders.†This is manifestly false. A definable and defensible border is precisely what defines a nation. Any third-grader looking at a globe can tell you where Mexico ends and the United States begins.
We agree that we should treat legal immigrants with compassion, in line with the time-honored precept found in the Old Testament. “You shall love him (i.e. the sojourner) as yourself†(Leviticus 19:34). I submit that America is doing a better job of embodying this precept than any nation on earth.
We naturalize a million immigrants a year, and grant legal entry to another million or so. We have the most generous, open-hearted, open-handed immigration policy on the planet.
In the last year for which figures are available, the U.S. granted citizenship to 230,000 immigrants from Mexico, more than than the next three countries of origin combined. Our borders and our hearts are hardly closed to Mexicans who are willing to play by the rules and knock on the front door rather than sneaking in through the back.
Leviticus 19:33 adds, “When a stranger sojourns with you in your land, you shall not do him wrong.†Some seem to believe that deporting lawbreakers qualifies as mistreatment.
But upholding the law is not mistreatment. We do no wrong to the shoplifter by holding him accountable for his behavior. In fact, enforcing the law is the way government shows compassion for victims of crime. Compassion is misdirected if it is targeted toward lawbreakers rather than victims.
Where is the compassion for the residents of Arizona who are forced to cope with drug smuggling, drug-related violence, human trafficking, home invasions, kidnappings, and $2.7billion in annual costs imposed on them by illegals for education, welfare, law enforcement and health care?
There’s no way around the fact that my evangelical friends want to reward aliens who break the law. They want to guarantee them access to a pathway to citizenship, no matter how vigorously they try to deny it. They want illegal aliens, as a matter of policy, to have the option of choosing a path that will lead to citizenship if they jump through enough hoops.
We should instead deal with the 12-20 million illegals currently in the country through attrition, by making access to any taxpayer-funded resource – whether education, welfare, or health care – contingent upon proof of legal residency.
Enforcing our immigration policy need not break up families. The president sent spouses and children along when he deported the Russian spies, and we can do the same with every illegal alien. We do not want to separate husbands from wives, or children from parents, so our policy should be to repatriate entire families together to preserve family integrity.
If a member of a family has the legal right to remain in the U.S., he of course should be allowed to exercise that right. But then the family itself would be responsible for dissolving the family unit, not the United States.”
Our Porous Southern Border: 7,000 illegals a year – on one trail?
Posted by Jack Sinclair in News on 20/Jul/2010 18:16
Arizona Backlash?
Posted by Jack Sinclair in News on 17/Jul/2010 11:57
Maria Elena Durazo, Los Angeles County Federation of Labor:
“In discussing the Arizona law, group members passionately recounted how they had been “singled out” by law enforcement, schools, stores and employers because of their skin color. They held a variety of views about immigration issues, but they all strongly viewed Arizona’s law as both an outgrowth of racial profiling and as a policy that would lead to more of it.
The focus groups were followed by a poll of 600 “occasional” L.A. County Latino voters from all political parties. About 92% knew about the Arizona law, and 81% opposed it. And 73% feared that California could pass a similar measure.
… poll respondents worried about the Arizona statue’s intent, with 84% seeing it as being more about racial profiling than about controlling illegal immigration. And they overwhelmingly believed it would have ramifications outside of Arizona, including more racial profiling by law enforcement here in Southern California.
So what effect are these fears likely to have on future elections? After former Gov. Pete Wilson’s 1994 attack on immigrants, Latinos flocked to join unions, and they then went on to vote for pro-union, progressive candidates and measures. The growing strength of the labor movement has made the difference in election after election … making the Latino caucus the largest in the Legislature outside the two parties.
According to the Field Poll, the Latino share of registered voters in California nearly doubled between 1990 and 2005 (from 10% to 19%), and the trend is continuing. If the past response among Latino voters to immigrant-bashing is a model, this year’s Arizona law could prove problematic to Republicans.
California’s gubernatorial contest could ultimately be determined by the state’s growing Latino electorate and by the proven ability of organized labor to turn that vote out on election day.
And Arizona Republicans shouldn’t be overconfident either.
This fall, Arizonans will vote again for a governor, and Brewer hopes to retain the office. But Latino leaders there have a goal of registering and turning out 50,000 more Latinos this fall than voted in the last statewide election.
We intend to help.
Hundreds of California labor activists will begin that effort by traveling to Arizona in a caravan of chartered buses July 29, the day the Arizona statute is set to take effect.
In 1972, when Arizona passed a law preventing farm workers from organizing a union, Cesar Chavez responded with a 25-day fast and campaign against the measure, calling people to rally behind the phrase “Si, se puede!” (“Yes, we can!”). Time after time since then, people have found that yes, they can. And this fall, in both California and Arizona, we will see once again that careful organizing against wrongheaded policies can carry the day.”
Dallas County sheriff’s jail guard arrested for being in country illegally
Posted by Jack Sinclair in News on 10/Jul/2010 13:04
Maria Ross
A Dallas County sheriff’s jail guard was arrested at work Friday morning by federal immigration officers on accusations of being in the country illegally and now faces deportation, county and federal officials said.
Maria Elvia Ross, 34, of Irving was taken into custody by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers sometime after 10 a.m. on civil immigration violations, ICE spokesman Carl Rusnok said.
“Administration’s ‘Silent Raids’ Lead to Firings, Not Deportations
Posted by Jack Sinclair in News on 10/Jul/2010 12:29
“The Obama administration’s new approach to dealing with companies that hire illegal immigrants results in firings, not deportations, the New York Times reported Friday.
Instead of immigration sweeps at factories and farms which used to lead to illegal workers being shipped out of the country, the administration’s new policy—government conducted audits labeled “silent raids†by employers—usually only result in the workers losing their jobs, the Times said.”
It seems to me this policy will only produce more and more unemployed illegal immigrants wandering around the US, with no income. What do hungry, desperate people do when they have no income? Eventually they either go somewhere where they can find work or they take what they need from someone else.
This policy of getting illegal workers fired but not deporting them is going to have a massive negative impact on our crime rate. Maybe not immediately, but as the population of out-of-work, hungry illegal immigrants grows, the crime will grow. Maybe this is one of those “fundamental changes” we were promised.
When is it time to deport?
Posted by Jack Sinclair in News on 10/Jul/2010 12:27
by YankeeJim:
When a person is discovered to be in the USA illegally, should not the person be deported immediately? Should not their name go down on a list, like three strikes, that says if you are caught again, your chances of ever getting into the country again diminish?What about prosecuting the companies that hire illegals? They know what credentials are required and if they have a question, they can call Immigration and Customs Enforcement and ask.
Justice Dept. Sues Arizona Over Its Immigration Law
Posted by Jack Sinclair in News on 7/Jul/2010 22:07
“The Justice Department filed a lawsuit on Tuesday against Arizona to challenge a new state law intended to combat illegal immigration, arguing that it would undermine the federal government’s pursuit of terrorists, gang members and other criminal immigrants.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/07/us/07immig.html?partner=rss&emc=rss
Yeah, because the federal government is working really, really hard at pursuing criminal immigrants (maybe this is why they can’t be bothered with pursuing illegal immigrants -Â they’re just way too busy pursuing criminal immigrants)
Hezbollah using Mexican nationals to establish a network in South America
Posted by Jack Sinclair in Threat Watch on 7/Jul/2010 22:00
“Mexico foiled an attempt by Hezbollah to establish a network in South America, a Kuwaiti newspaper reported on Tuesday.
Hezbollah operatives employed Mexican nationals with family ties to Lebanon to set up the network, designed to target Israel and the West, the Al-Seyassah daily said.
Mexican police mounted a surveillance operation on the group’s leader, Jameel Nasr, who traveled frequently to Lebanon to receive information and instructions from Hezbollah commanders there.
Nasr was living in Tijuana, Mexico at the time of his arrest, the report said.
The report follows warnings from the United States that Hezbollah and its backer Iran are stepping up operations in the region.”
Arizona: trouble’s been brewing for a long time
Posted by Jack Sinclair in News on 7/Jul/2010 20:57
There have been many voices howling in objection to Arizona’s tough stance on illegal immigrants.
Wherever you stand on the subject keep this in mind: Arizona citizens have been frustrated, concerned and alarmed about this problem of illegal immigrants for a long time. For example, this story from March of this year:
“Krentz’s body, and his badly injured dog, were discovered shortly before midnight Saturday by a helicopter search crew after he failed to show up at a prearranged meeting with his brother. No suspect has been identified, but footprints tracked by Border Patrol agents, deputies and Arizona Department of Corrections dog chase teams led 20 miles south to the Mexican border.
While many ranchers in Arizona grew furious about property damage and trash left behind by illegal immigrants who crossed through the state’s southeast corner on the way north, Krentz, several people said, was still willing to help those in need.
“He’s a kind and gentle man. He’s the last person who would ever be confrontational,” Cowan said. “If someone needed help, he would go help them. All he wanted was to raise his family and raise his livestock and have a peaceful life.”
http://www.borderlandbeat.com/2010/03/ranchers-big-fear-realized.html
“Biggest fight of the 21st Century just started”
Posted by Jack Sinclair in Opinion on 6/Jul/2010 18:48
“Nothing gets Americans’ dander up like messing with States’ rights. This is especially true when the Federal Government, as it says, has jurisdiction but then failed to do their job.
Federal law trumps state laws as the Preemption clause says in the Constitution, but what if the Federal Statue is full of holes or is unenforced, leaving states with demonstrated material damage. Can the state recover damages through their own suit against the Feds for the cost of illegal immigration?
Now, don’t get me wrong. I am in favor of legal immigration, but it must be within our capacity to manage in accordance with the law. Illegal immigration is a wound that has been allowed to fester to the point of threatening the health of the Nation.” – by YankeeJim
http://www.nowpublic.com/world/biggest-fight-21st-century-just-started
Many legislators aim to copy Arizona immigration law
Posted by Jack Sinclair in Law, News on 25/Jun/2010 18:26
“BOISE — Arizona’s sweeping new immigration law doesn’t even take effect until next month, but lawmakers in nearly 20 other states are already clamoring to follow in its footsteps.
Gubernatorial candidates in Florida and Minnesota are singing the law’s praises, as are some lawmakers in other states far from the Mexico border such as Idaho and Nebraska. But states also are watching legal challenges to the new law, and whether boycotts over it will harm Arizona’s economy.
“If the feds won’t do it, states are saying, ‘We’re going to have to do it,'” said Idaho state Sen. Monty Pearce.”
http://www.newsvine.com/_news/2010/06/25/4562847-many-legislators-aim-to-copy-ariz-immigration-law
Al Shabaab Threats Against the United States?
Posted by Brian in News, Threat Watch on 4/Jun/2010 13:48
This report is republished with permission of STRATFOR
By Scott Stewart
On the afternoon of Sunday, May 30, an Aeromexico flight from Paris to Mexico City was forced to land in Montreal after authorities discovered that a man who was on the U.S. no-fly list was aboard. The aircraft was denied permission to enter U.S. airspace, and the aircraft was diverted to Trudeau International Airport in Montreal. The man, a Somali named Abdirahman Ali Gaall, was removed from the plane and arrested by Canadian authorities on an outstanding U.S. warrant. After a search of all the remaining passengers and their baggage, the flight was allowed to continue to its original destination.
Gaall reportedly has U.S. resident-alien status and is apparently married to an American or Canadian woman. Media reports also suggest that he is connected with the Somali jihadist group al Shabaab. Gaall was reportedly deported from Canada to the United States on June 1, and we are unsure of the precise charges brought against him by the U.S. government, but more information should be forthcoming once he has his detention hearing. From the facts at hand, however, it appears likely that he has been charged for his connection with al Shabaab, perhaps with a crime such as material support to a designated terrorist organization.
Last week, the Department of Homeland Security issued a lookout to authorities in Texas, warning that another Somali purportedly linked to al Shabaab was believed to be in Mexico and was allegedly planning to attempt to cross the border into the United States. This lookout appears to be linked to a U.S. indictment in March charging another Somali man with running a large-scale smuggling ring bringing Somalis into the United States through Latin America.
Taken together, these incidents highlight the increased attention the U.S. government has given to al Shabaab and the concern that the Somali militant group could be planning to conduct attacks in the United States. Although many details pertaining to the Gaall case remain unknown at this time, these incidents involving Somalis, Mexico and possible militant connections — and the obvious U.S. concern — provide an opportunity to discuss the dynamics of Somali immigration as it relates to the U.S. border with Mexico, as well as the possibility that al Shabaab has decided to target the United States. Read the rest of this entry »